Xprocessing

Just as a side note here, has anyone noticed the heavy imitation of xpro film on CSI Miami? I'm assuming that this is a digital filter, but the look is virtually identical to some work I've seen posted around the 'net.

Yep I've seen it. It looks like it is pure post processing. I see all kinds of image manipulation on TV -- some real some digital post process. What annoys me is when it has no rhyme or reason. There is a dog food commercial here in Canada that imitates bleach bypass, xprocessing, and a few other techniques that I recognize, but can't name. The snippet's look good, and they even are somewhat cohesive from one scene to the next, but they have no relationship to the subject or message. It like the ran out of ideas so they used every trick they knew or that they didn't care if it made sense only that it looked good.

I blame MTV. They have indoctrinated a generation on a kind of visual style that doesn't require substance or meaning.

A little bit of looking around reveals that CSI employs the services of FotoKem Laboratory, a major motion picuture processing facility in Burbank, whose "specialty processing includes push / pull / cross processing / enr / skip bleach". (quoted directly from their website) So now I'm not so sure... is it more expensive to cross-process a couple of hundred feet of Ektachrome per episode than it is to recreate the effect on a computer?

Of course we blame MTV. (so did Mark Knopfler ) It's consumerism co-opting, exploiting and ultimately destroying every critical modern culture. It has become so common place, I hardly have the energy to get upset by it anymore.

I have no idea as to cost of post processing v. crossprocessing. I suspect if they have their technique down (and I bet they do) that it is cheaper or faster to xproc then to do it post. With TV being so limited (even HD) I don't think we'd notice too much of a difference. I watched a couple episodes of CSI and they really spent a lot of time working out their lighting for each scene. To me it was over done (tons of jelled back grounds), but it was cool that they at least thought about it. Most shows are not so concerned with using lighting for affect.

I don't know about the colour cast; that tends to be vary from film to film. JD knows this kind of thing and could give you a better answer. You will generally find more contrast, which can result in blocked highlights or shadows. Remember, you're shooting transparencies, which do not have the same latitude as negative film. Also, you can expect more pronounced grain. Now, if these are things you are trying to avoid, it might take some trial and error to find a film that suits your purposes. I tend to consider these characteristics as features of this type of photography, and try to shoot to emphasize them when I can.

"I have attempted to xprocess fuji provia rdp III in tetenal c41 chemistry and results are contrasty "negs" with a magenta color cast. Somthing to be epected? or somthing I am missing in processing?"

Yes, RDP has a strong yellow/green cast (on the print mag/blue on the neg) and is really contrasty. I've never liked this film for ccrossprocessing, but if you put a strong magenta filter on the camera and shot scenes with a narrow tonal range you can get something good

Hi all : I have just joined this Group as I have tried the X Pro with a few different films, usually with Medium Format cameras -- I have used all outdated films -- Kodak Ektachrome 100, Fuji Provia 100 and 400, Agfachrome 1000 and Agfachrome RS 200 -- I find I get very dense and contrasty negatives except for the old Agfachrome 1000 when they were a bit 'thin' and could have done with more exposure -- usually I think I have to CUT the exposure ! I have a few samples saved -- I will upload some into this Group -- hope you view !
regards --- Peter, Brentwood, Essex ( England)